The Mohammud Cartoons
Lee Ratner
I've been fascinated for several days by the latest confrontation
between the EU and the Muslim world.
Awhile ago, a Danish newspaper published a series of political
cartoons that depicted Mohammud. This pest off the Muslim world because
under Islam Mohammud is not suppossed to be depicted and the cartoons
were not flattering. Some Muslim countries recalled their ambasadors
from Denmark, others held protests and launched boycotts of Danish
goods. The Danish government refused to apologize stating that it does
not need to apologize for its citizens exercising freedom of speech.
Then other European nations, or at least other European newspapers,
came to the aid of the Danish press by reprinting the cartoons. The BBC
broadcasted the cartoons. Many European newspapers criticized the
Muslim world for having a double standard, nothing the vast amonts of
Jew-hatred in the Arab and Muslim media that they never apologize for.
The Muslim world does not seem to care.
The reaction to the Muslim world has been very severe so far and
will probably get more intense.
The Thunder Child
came to the aid of the Danish press by reprinting the cartoons.
And at least one editor was fired for doing so, I thought.
Caroline
The Thunder Child
http://thethunderchild.omnivoreink.com
David Dyer-Bennet
> I've been fascinated for several days by the latest confrontation
> between the EU and the Muslim world.
Yeah, me too. I can't tell if our press is cherry-picking the
response to make them look particularly stupid, or if what we're
seeing is really representative.
But none of the Western letters I've seen published really captures my
position. Which is: Get over it. That cartoon represents how a very
vocal faction of the islamic community is presenting itself to us.
And (subject to the above uncertainty about cherry-picking by the
press) I notice that there isn't an outcry about muslims justifying
their actions from the teachings of Mohammed; only about the Western
press depicting it that way.
(The particular cartoon I remember shows somebody apparently supposed
to be Mohammed wearing a typical head-dress, with a typical cartoon
bomb nestled in it.)
There's a lovely at <http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000768.html>
showing Mohammed (and a camel) gazing at a sketch-pad with that
cartoon on it, and two Western people with coffee, one saying
"Frankly, Mr. Mohammed, a few Danish cartoons are the LEAST of your
image problems...", and then a big easel with a list of issues.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Richard Eney
Lee Ratner <LBRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Awhile ago, a Danish newspaper published a series of political
>cartoons that depicted Mohammud. This pest off the Muslim world because
>under Islam Mohammud is not suppossed to be depicted and the cartoons
>were not flattering. Some Muslim countries recalled their ambasadors
>from Denmark, others held protests and launched boycotts of Danish
>goods. The Danish government refused to apologize stating that it does
>not need to apologize for its citizens exercising freedom of speech.
>
> Then other European nations, or at least other European newspapers,
>came to the aid of the Danish press by reprinting the cartoons. The BBC
>broadcasted the cartoons. Many European newspapers criticized the
>Muslim world for having a double standard, nothing the vast amonts of
>Jew-hatred in the Arab and Muslim media that they never apologize for.
>The Muslim world does not seem to care.
In later development of this incident, various European papers and
magazines have not only reprinted the original cartoons but printed new
ones. (The initial ones represented Mohammed in the role of a suicide
bomber. I'm not sure what was done to top that.) Several Muslim sects
claim that Mohammed never shed blood. Credat Judaeus Apella.
-- Dick Eney
Dan Kimmel
"The Thunder Child" <thethun...@omnivoreink.com> wrote in message
news:1138980943.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>Then other European nations, or at least other European newspapers,
> came to the aid of the Danish press by reprinting the cartoons.
>
> And at least one editor was fired for doing so, I thought.
>
The editor of France Soir, which is owned by an Egyptian.
Dan Kimmel
"Lee Ratner" <LBRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138978209.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
This is something that everyone who believes in freedom -- liberal or
conservative, pro or anti Bush -- should agree on. We do not sacrifice our
freedoms on the altar of mob rule. If Muslim nations want to enforce their
religious law and prohibit illustrations depicting their prophet, that is
their business. But how dare they demand that Western democracies not only
bow to their demands, but *apologize* for our freedoms.
I would like to see newspapers all over the world run these cartoons. If
they are offensive to Muslims, too bad. Write a letter to the editor. I
see the filth and hate that appears without question in the Muslim media,
and see no reason at all to compromise on matters of principle.
Tim McDaniel
>flattering.
At least three were just cartoons -- drawings -- rather than political
cartoons. Two of them criticize Jyllands-Posten instead of Mohammed.
Anyone who wants to see for themselves can find them at, inter alia,
<http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html>
(About the one with the hornlike head projections: I'm not sure.
That might merely be a crescent behind the head, with the whole
"crescent as Islamic symbol" thing. I think the Bible refers to Moses
as having glowing horns.)
>The Danish government refused to apologize stating that it does not
>need to apologize for its citizens exercising freedom of speech.
I don't have the full text of his remarks. The Danish PM's comments
have been interpreted as an apology:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4677976.stm> notes
The cartoons were first published in September 2005 by Danish
newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They were later republished in Austria
in January, and then at the beginning of February in a number of
European newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Diplomatic protests by governments of Islamic countries started in
October 2005, escalating to the closure of embassies. ...
On 2 February, Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen appeared on Arabic
TV to apologise for offence caused by the cartoons, but he also
defended freedom of expression.
"Neither the Danish government nor the Danish nation as such can
be held responsible for drawings published in a Danish newspaper,"
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after meeting
with Muslim envoys in Copenhagen.
"A Danish government can never apologise on behalf of a free and
independent newspaper," he said. "This is basically a dispute
between some Muslims and a newspaper."
I suspect that he gave a carefully-worded, nuanced, and subtle
statement, and different people soundbited it into oblivion.
>Many European newspapers criticized the Muslim world for having a
>double standard, nothing the vast amonts of Jew-hatred in the Arab
>and Muslim media that they never apologize for.
I have not seen that in the coverage I've seen (BBC News on the Web),
and I'm sad to say that I didn't think of that argument.
--
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Damien Sullivan
>Yeah, me too. I can't tell if our press is cherry-picking the
>response to make them look particularly stupid, or if what we're
>seeing is really representative.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
Al-Sistani sounds saner.
But when you have embassies being withdrawn amid demands that Denmark punish
the newspaper, and a general boycott of Danish products, there doesn't seem
much room for cherry-picking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
I think said that many Moslems think Denmark controls the paper -- that the
rumors going around are that the paper is an arm of the government or ruling
party. Which makes some of the reaction seem a bit more rational. OTOH,
they're wrong, so what to do?
>But none of the Western letters I've seen published really captures my
>position. Which is: Get over it. That cartoon represents how a very
>vocal faction of the islamic community is presenting itself to us.
More like, the paper commissioned the cartoons out of concern that
illustrators were afraid of death threats. Responding with death threats
doesn't help the point.
-xx- Damien X-)
Zev Sero
http://neowarmonger.blogspot.com/2006/01/danish-cartoons.html.
But the site I linked to seems to have been taken down, so I've updated
it today with a link that still works.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
z...@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Steve Glover
<daniel...@rcn.com> writes
>> And at least one editor was fired for doing so, I thought.
>>
>
>The editor of France Soir, which is owned by an Egyptian.
And an Egyptian of the Coptic persuasion, at that.
There was a link from the mediawatchwatch website to a blog that had the
cartoons, and also to a site with a collection of representations of
Mohammed ranging from mediaeval Persian through to the present day -
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
- (the site's somewhat slashdotted right now, but apparently one of the
sets of cartoons is "Fun with the Prophet", a comic series from a Dutch
language (Belgian, Dutch?) newspaper.
Oh, and there's some really fancy portraits of Mohammed as sold on the
streets of various Middle Eastern capitals....
I'm beginning to wonder if the extension of "No Idolatry" to "No images"
is about as endemic in Islam as the "No work on Sunday" thing is in
Christianity (ie some sects take it to extremes, but others don't do it
at all, anymore).
The other thing we're getting is a whole bunch of folk saying (online
and in the mass media) -"You never see Christians kick up about all the
bad stuff we have to suffer, but as soon as these ethnics get their
knickers in a twist, the Government immediately takes their side"-. I
don't think these guys remember, for example, the "Jerry Springer, the
Opera" stushie....
Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd.
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07961 446 902
Steve Glover
<dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>Yeah, me too. I can't tell if our press is cherry-picking the
>response to make them look particularly stupid, or if what we're
>seeing is really representative.
Not impossible. There's some interesting[1] stuff on -
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/english
- including the explanation of how it all flared up again after the
moderate Danish Muslim organisations said they'd be quite happy with an
assurance that the cartoons had not been meant offensively:
"Today almost all the European newspapers are reporting on the Danish
cartoon case. What most papers do not mention is that the whole affair
escalated after a group of radical Danish Muslims and imams visited the
Arab countries early in January with the deliberate intent to provoke a
consumer boycott of Denmark. These people wanted to punish the Danish
government for its refusal to introduce press censorship. They even
added three false cartoons, possibly of their own making, to the twelve
drawings of Muhammad that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published
last September. (See the original cartoons here, halfway down the
page.)"
Steve
[1] Reading the site more deeply, there's fairly obviously an agenda
there...
Lee Ratner
Tim McDaniel wrote:
>
> >Many European newspapers criticized the Muslim world for having a
> >double standard, nothing the vast amonts of Jew-hatred in the Arab
> >and Muslim media that they never apologize for.
>
> I have not seen that in the coverage I've seen (BBC News on the Web),
> and I'm sad to say that I didn't think of that argument.
>
Kip Williams
> The other thing we're getting is a whole bunch of folk saying (online
> and in the mass media) -"You never see Christians kick up about all the
> bad stuff we have to suffer, but as soon as these ethnics get their
> knickers in a twist, the Government immediately takes their side"-. I
> don't think these guys remember, for example, the "Jerry Springer, the
> Opera" stushie....
They don't seem to hear themselves.
Or perhaps they think they're just this tiny minority, so even though
they know they're all complaining, they're still just outnumbered by...
well, minorities... and don't get heard.
Kip W
David Friedman
Steve Glover <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm beginning to wonder if the extension of "No Idolatry" to "No images"
> is about as endemic in Islam as the "No work on Sunday" thing is in
> Christianity (ie some sects take it to extremes, but others don't do it
> at all, anymore).
I don't think it was ever universal in Islam. As I understand it, the
Shia were generally less strict than the Sunni, and pretty much limited
it to "no images of living things inside the mosque."
Consider all those wonderful Persian miniatures.
Damien Neil
> The other thing we're getting is a whole bunch of folk saying (online
> and in the mass media) -"You never see Christians kick up about all the
> bad stuff we have to suffer, but as soon as these ethnics get their
> knickers in a twist, the Government immediately takes their side"-. I
> don't think these guys remember, for example, the "Jerry Springer, the
> Opera" stushie....
However, consider the volume and nature of the reaction to _The DaVinci
Code_ vs. the current Muslim bloviating.
(My reaction, too, is "Oh, get over yourselves, for crying out loud.")
- Damien
Tim McDaniel
>Mohammed ranging from mediaeval Persian through to the present day -
>
>http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
>
> - (the site's somewhat slashdotted right now,
Apparently mirrored at
<http://info2us.dk/muhammed/> - slow
<http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/mohammedmirror.htm>
<http://www.outpost911.com/>
Mike Van Pelt
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>This is something that everyone who believes in freedom -- liberal or
>conservative, pro or anti Bush -- should agree on. We do not sacrifice our
>freedoms on the altar of mob rule. If Muslim nations want to enforce their
>religious law and prohibit illustrations depicting their prophet, that is
>their business. But how dare they demand that Western democracies not only
>bow to their demands, but *apologize* for our freedoms.
>
>I would like to see newspapers all over the world run these cartoons. If
>they are offensive to Muslims, too bad. Write a letter to the editor. I
>see the filth and hate that appears without question in the Muslim media,
>and see no reason at all to compromise on matters of principle.
I wonder how far their principles will go. I have this very
strong suspicion that their expectations of what happens when
they annoy religious people have been set by the brief
complaints they have, in the past, received from Christian and
Jewish subjects of their disrespect.
I very much suspect that the fact that they're now stirring up
a bunch of very literally murderous fanatics didn't quite
penetrate their brains.
The results will be ... interesting.
--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
news:1139020345.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Damien Sullivan wrote:
>> I think said that many Moslems think Denmark controls the paper -- that
>> the rumors going around are that the paper is an arm of the government
>> or ruling party. Which makes some of the reaction seem a bit more
>> rational. OTOH, they're wrong, so what to do?
>
> Explain patiently that the newspaper, unlike in most Muslim countries,
> is not censored or controlled by the government to anyone who'll
> listen. For those of us who are not Danish and like Denmark (me for
> example) I'll make more of a point than usual to buy Danish goods to
> offset any boycott effects. Other than that there is not much to be
> done until the rage passes.
Tonight is the regular open house at the LASFS Clubhouse. Generally there is
socializing and gaming of various sorts (Mah Jongg, card games, board games,
RPG, etc.). (There is a subset of us who go out to dinner together at
restaurants; that's my clique.) But in general those who wish to bring
snacks are welcome to do so.
I just stopped at the supermarket on my way home and bought some cheese:
Denmark's Finest creamy Havarti, and Rosenborg Danish Blue. I'll bring these
to the Clubhouse and put them on the snack table as open stock.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Andrew Stephenson
Yet again something, that (AIUI) was already fading from public
consciousness, has been thrust into the faces of readers around
the world, guaranteeing that whatever offence it represents was
multiplied beyond reckoning. People who would never have heard
of the cartoons, or cared, have seen them. Counter-productive?
This kind of cretinous home goal happened with Salman Rushdie's
"Satanic Verses". Some fanatic decided to share-and-enjoy when
the book was passe and boosted its sales -- though I'm not sure
Rushdie is exactly grateful for the extra royalties.
Seems to me, those responsible for such PR coupes merit, at the
very least, a token of acknowledgement by their own team.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Dan Kimmel
"Andrew Stephenson" <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:113902...@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
Attempts at censorship is almost always counterproductive in free societies
because however much people might want to protect *others* from something,
they still want to decide for themselves. I remember about twenty years ago
a local cinama here opened up two Jean-Luc Godard films on two of their
three screens. They were Godard at his artiest, but one of them was "Hail
Mary," which led to picketing of the theater for his "blasphemous" modern
day version of the birth of Jesus. The other film, "Detective," played all
of two weeks. "Hail Mary" played for *months*.
Dan Kimmel
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ds02la$p5b$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> In article <1138978209.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Lee Ratner <LBRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Awhile ago, a Danish newspaper published a series of political
> >cartoons that depicted Mohammud. ... the cartoons were not
> >flattering.
>
> At least three were just cartoons -- drawings -- rather than political
> cartoons. Two of them criticize Jyllands-Posten instead of Mohammed.
> Anyone who wants to see for themselves can find them at, inter alia,
> <http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html>
>
> (About the one with the hornlike head projections: I'm not sure.
> That might merely be a crescent behind the head, with the whole
> "crescent as Islamic symbol" thing. I think the Bible refers to Moses
> as having glowing horns.)
No, it doesn't. But a misinterpretation of the Hebrew (which refers to rays
of light coming from Moses as a result of his prolonged exposure to God's
presence) led to the variation about horns, which was picked up by
Michaelangelo (among others) when he did his sculpture of Moses.
Dan Kimmel
"Mishalak" <Mish...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139020345.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Damien Sullivan wrote:
> > I think said that many Moslems think Denmark controls the paper -- that
the
> > rumors going around are that the paper is an arm of the government or
ruling
> > party. Which makes some of the reaction seem a bit more rational.
OTOH,
> > they're wrong, so what to do?
>
> is not censored or controlled by the government to anyone who'll
> listen. For those of us who are not Danish and like Denmark (me for
> example) I'll make more of a point than usual to buy Danish goods to
> offset any boycott effects. Other than that there is not much to be
> done until the rage passes.
What makes you think the "rage" will pass. Doesn't Salman Rushdie still
have to watch his back?
Dan Kimmel
"Mike Van Pelt" <m...@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
news:43e402eb$0$76012$d36...@news.calweb.com...
> In article <RJWdnVgILIZ...@rcn.net>,
> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >This is something that everyone who believes in freedom -- liberal or
> >conservative, pro or anti Bush -- should agree on. We do not sacrifice
our
> >freedoms on the altar of mob rule. If Muslim nations want to enforce
their
> >religious law and prohibit illustrations depicting their prophet, that is
> >their business. But how dare they demand that Western democracies not
only
> >bow to their demands, but *apologize* for our freedoms.
> >
> >I would like to see newspapers all over the world run these cartoons. If
> >they are offensive to Muslims, too bad. Write a letter to the editor. I
> >see the filth and hate that appears without question in the Muslim media,
> >and see no reason at all to compromise on matters of principle.
>
> I wonder how far their principles will go. I have this very
> strong suspicion that their expectations of what happens when
> they annoy religious people have been set by the brief
> complaints they have, in the past, received from Christian and
> Jewish subjects of their disrespect.
Several stern letters, perhaps some cancelled subscriptions, a review by the
editors if the critics have a point, and -- if called for -- sometimes an
apology. Otherwise, some letter or op-ed space for the critics to have
their say.
> I very much suspect that the fact that they're now stirring up
> a bunch of very literally murderous fanatics didn't quite
> penetrate their brains.
>
> The results will be ... interesting.
I'm finding the results horrifying. Like our shameful administration in
Washington taking the side of the mob:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/04/MNGOSH2TSD1.DTL
If I was the Danish head of state, I'd be summoning my ambassador back from
Washington for "consultations" and not be in a hurry to send him/her back.
(If I understand diplomatese, that's considered an expression of taking
umbrage bordering on the insulting response.)
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:nbydnfyFiIIKPnne...@rcn.net:
Last para of the article:
"He [top Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar] said he is protecting us not because
he is Hamas," said the Rev. Manuel Musallam of the Holy Family Roman
Catholic Church, who said he has long and friendly relations with Hamas.
"But he is protecting Christians and our institutions as the state of
Palestine and as a government."
Now there speaks a man who has a knife at his throat.
Andrew Stephenson
daniel...@rcn.com "Dan Kimmel" writes:
>
> "Andrew Stephenson" <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:113902...@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
> > Apropos (of) no particular posting on these Mohammed cartoons:-
> >
> > Yet again something, that (AIUI) was already fading from public
> > consciousness, has been thrust into the faces of readers around
> > the world, guaranteeing that whatever offence it represents was
> > multiplied beyond reckoning. People who would never have heard
> > of the cartoons, or cared, have seen them. Counter-productive?
> >
> > [...]
>
> Attempts at censorship is almost always counterproductive in
> free societies because however much people might want to protect
> *others* from something, they still want to decide for
> themselves. [...]
I won't disagree with you; but I wasn't advocating any kind of
censorship, merely marvelling at the stupidity of the bods who
could have let the matter rest but instead ensured the insults
(as perceived) were multiplied. "Wow," says one, "the Prophet
has been insulted nearly widely enough. Let's make sure _all_
of the world's infidels get a hearty laugh at His expense, not
just the few Danes who happened to read that newspaper issue."
Fanatics... *sigh* Makes you suspect a sh*t-stirring agenda.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson
am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk "Andrew Stephenson" writes:
> [...] "Wow," says one, "the Prophet has been insulted nearly
> widely enough. [...]
*gah* Typo. Read "hasn't" instead of "has". (Damn, it throws
off the text alignment something rotten. Don't you hate that?)
--
Andrew Stephenson
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>
>Attempts at censorship is almost always counterproductive in free societies
>because however much people might want to protect *others* from something,
>they still want to decide for themselves. I remember about twenty years ago
>a local cinama here opened up two Jean-Luc Godard films on two of their
>three screens. They were Godard at his artiest, but one of them was "Hail
>Mary," which led to picketing of the theater for his "blasphemous" modern
>day version of the birth of Jesus. The other film, "Detective," played all
>of two weeks. "Hail Mary" played for *months*.
And it was an _exclusive_ engagement: no passes.
-- Alan
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:113907...@deltrak.demon.co.uk:
> In article <nbydnf2FiIIKPnne...@rcn.net>
> daniel...@rcn.com "Dan Kimmel" writes:
>
>> "Andrew Stephenson" <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:113902...@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
>> > Apropos (of) no particular posting on these Mohammed cartoons:-
>> >
>> > Yet again something, that (AIUI) was already fading from public
>> > consciousness, has been thrust into the faces of readers around
>> > the world, guaranteeing that whatever offence it represents was
>> > multiplied beyond reckoning. People who would never have heard
>> > of the cartoons, or cared, have seen them. Counter-productive?
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> Attempts at censorship is almost always counterproductive in free
>> societies because however much people might want to protect *others*
>> from something, they still want to decide for themselves. [...]
>
> I won't disagree with you; but I wasn't advocating any kind of
> censorship, merely marvelling at the stupidity of the bods who could have
> let the matter rest but instead ensured the insults (as perceived) were
> multiplied. "Wow," says one, "the Prophet has[n't] been insulted nearly
> widely enough. Let's make sure _all_ of the world's infidels get a
> hearty laugh at His expense, not just the few Danes who happened to read
> that newspaper issue."
>
> Fanatics... *sigh* Makes you suspect a sh*t-stirring agenda.
Maybe the agenda was to try to get some Moslem Turks to behave incordially,
and lessen the likelihood that Turkey will join the EU.
Keith F. Lynch
> What makes you think the "rage" will pass. Doesn't Salman Rushdie
> still have to watch his back?
I don't think so. I seem to recall he has given well-publicized talks
in bookstores in recent years.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
> "Rushdie subsequently declared that ... he regretted attempts to
> appease his critics by making statements to the effect that he was
> a practicing Muslim."
There are at least three ways to parse that sentence. Does anyone
know which way is correct? Thanks.
Dan Kimmel
I was agreeing with you, not accusing you. :)
Dan Kimmel
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:ds34gt$bic$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > What makes you think the "rage" will pass. Doesn't Salman Rushdie
> > still have to watch his back?
>
> I don't think so. I seem to recall he has given well-publicized talks
> in bookstores in recent years.
Which is not the same as saying that security isn't present, scanning the
room and the audience.
Andrew Stephenson
daniel...@rcn.com "Dan Kimmel" writes:
> "Andrew Stephenson" <am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:113907...@deltrak.demon.co.uk...
>
> > [burblings in response to a Dan-posting]
>
> I was agreeing with you, not accusing you. :)
Whoops. Mea Big Culpa. Apogees... A man of flawless judgement.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson
oy兀earthlink.net "Matthew B. Tepper" writes:
> Maybe the agenda was to try to get some Moslem Turks to behave
> incordially, and lessen the likelihood that Turkey will join
> the EU.
Quite possible. Maybe they'll join RASFF instead. We don't have
nearly enough ineffectual political debates since certain parties
went away, some time back. These religious ones are entirely too
educational.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Karl Johanson
news:ds08ar$6od$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, me too. I can't tell if our press is cherry-picking the
>>response to make them look particularly stupid, or if what we're
>>seeing is really representative.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
>
> Al-Sistani sounds saner.
>
> But when you have embassies being withdrawn amid demands that Denmark
> punish
> the newspaper, and a general boycott of Danish products, there doesn't
> seem
> much room for cherry-picking.
Woo hoo! More Danish cheese for the rest of us!
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
controversy, that I don't think anyone has made.
At least some of the European countries don't believe in freedom of the
press, in particular with regard to Nazi or anti-semitic statements. My
understanding is that publicly denying the holocaust is a crime in
Germany--I will be happy to be corrected if that is wrong--and that
there are similar restrictions in France. I doubt it's true in Denmark,
don't know about Norway.
So it isn't entirely unreasonable for Muslims to feel that anti-Jewish
material is not permitted, anti-Muslim material is, although it requires
a significant amount of ignorance of the details (assuming I have them
right) to believe that about Denmark.
Nancy Lebovitz
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>There's one point I think worth making on the Muslim side of this
>controversy, that I don't think anyone has made.
>
>At least some of the European countries don't believe in freedom of the
>press, in particular with regard to Nazi or anti-semitic statements. My
>understanding is that publicly denying the holocaust is a crime in
>Germany--I will be happy to be corrected if that is wrong--and that
>there are similar restrictions in France. I doubt it's true in Denmark,
There's a Nazi Party in Denmark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmarks_Nationalsocialistiske_Bev%C3%A6gelse
>don't know about Norway.
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Karen Lofstrom
> Fanatics... *sigh* Makes you suspect a sh*t-stirring agenda.
I've been wondering if the protests aren't REALLY a way for various Muslim
organizations to show off their power -- to the local government. They
can't go out into the streets to protest the Syrian dictatorship; they'd
be shot. However, the government doesn't dare shut down a protest against
Western disrespect for Muhammad, so the government has to sit mum
while the radicals strut and burn things.
Also, as recruitment tools for the radical imams. The guy who started the
big mess, with his tour of the Middle East bearing faked evidence, is
saying that the response is highly satisfactory and attendance at his
mosque has tripled.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I could not stop for Death
He kindly left a message on my voice mail system -- Bryan O'Sullivan
Per Chr. J.
When it comes to Norway we do not have laws specifically targeting, for
example, Holocaust revisionism. The general constitutional right of
free speech is limited by several parts of the penal code, the relevant
paragraph stating that speech inciting to hate and discrimination of
for instance ethnic groups is not permitted. The law has been rarely
used and the precedent seems to be that the prosecution has to prove
the intention of incitement (I know that some anti-racism activists
want the law used more actively against their enemies, others prefer to
win in marketplace of ideas).
I saw an interview with a high-profile lawyer over here who is also a
Pakistani Muslim, and who wanted the sleeping laws against blasphemy
(against the Christian religion) revived and revised - and made into a
blanket ban on critisism of all religion. Oh joy. I've seen both
Muslims and Christians rail against the terrible freethinkers and
atheist, I wonder I we'd be covered by such a law as well. :-)
When it comes to Nazis, there are several small parties and groups
(these guys bicker a lot among themselves). I believe the
collaborationist Nasjonal Samling was specifically banned in 1945, and
their assets taken over by the state. Do not know whether the ban has
force of law nowadays, that is, if somebody said they were reviving the
Nasjonal Samling you could take their party assets...
Per
(I must add that I am not a lawyer, so I do not know the correct
translations for the legal terms, so there might be some sources of
error here.)
Dan Kimmel
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-CE307A.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
But anti-Jewish -- more particularly, anti-Israel -- material is not only
permitted, but is *widespread* in the European press. And virulently
antisemitic material is widespread in the Arab press.
So, no, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the "Muslim side of this
controversy." They don't like depictions of Mohammad. Fine. Don't read
publications that have them. Forbid them in your own countries. But
rioting in the streets, attacking and threatening people, burning down
embassies? These are the acts of the ignorant mob that wants to force
everyone else to accept their viewpoint as the only legitimate one.
It is VERY unreasonable for anyone to believe that European media prohbits
anti-Jewish material but allows anti-Muslim material.
Dan Kimmel
"Karen Lofstrom" <lofs...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:11udncf...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <113907...@deltrak.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Stephenson wrote:
>
> > Fanatics... *sigh* Makes you suspect a sh*t-stirring agenda.
>
> I've been wondering if the protests aren't REALLY a way for various Muslim
> organizations to show off their power -- to the local government. They
> can't go out into the streets to protest the Syrian dictatorship; they'd
> be shot. However, the government doesn't dare shut down a protest against
> Western disrespect for Muhammad, so the government has to sit mum
> while the radicals strut and burn things.
>
That's very astute. Forcing the western media and governments to cower may
simply be a fringe benefit.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>No, it doesn't. But a misinterpretation of the Hebrew (which refers to rays
>of light coming from Moses as a result of his prolonged exposure to God's
>presence) led to the variation about horns, which was picked up by
>Michaelangelo (among others) when he did his sculpture of Moses.
The way I heard this story, it was a typo/misreading in the Latin
translation, "cornua" (horns) being substituted for "corona" (crown or halo).
--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Dorothy J Heydt
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>In article <nbydncOFiIIKPnne...@rcn.net>,
>Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>No, it doesn't. But a misinterpretation of the Hebrew (which refers to rays
>>of light coming from Moses as a result of his prolonged exposure to God's
>>presence) led to the variation about horns, which was picked up by
>>Michaelangelo (among others) when he did his sculpture of Moses.
>
>The way I heard this story, it was a typo/misreading in the Latin
>translation, "cornua" (horns) being substituted for "corona" (crown or halo).
No, I think it's a mistranslation of a Hebrew word. *No, I don't
know what word.) Certainly the misreading predates typesetting,
and simple metathesis of two letters isn't as common a scribal
error as a typesetting error.
Oh, here we are, it was St. Jerome's mistake of all people's.
http://www.moseshand.com/studies/moses.htm
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Zev Sero
> Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>No, it doesn't. But a misinterpretation of the Hebrew (which refers to rays
>>>of light coming from Moses as a result of his prolonged exposure to God's
>>>presence) led to the variation about horns, which was picked up by
>>>Michaelangelo (among others) when he did his sculpture of Moses.
>>The way I heard this story, it was a typo/misreading in the Latin
>>translation, "cornua" (horns) being substituted for "corona" (crown or halo).
> No, I think it's a mistranslation of a Hebrew word. *No, I don't
> know what word.)
It could be either one. The Hebrew word is "karan", from "keren", which
means "horn" or, by extension, "ray". Interesting that Latin has almost
the same similarity between these words, with the same consonants.
Makes one wonder whether they have a common origin.
> Certainly the misreading predates typesetting,
> and simple metathesis of two letters isn't as common a scribal
> error as a typesetting error.
In the Hebrew, they're the same word. Whether it means "horn" or "ray"
depends on context* - a bull has horns, the sun has rays. After a close
encounter of the divine kind, Moses' skin is far more likely to have
been emitting rays of light than to have sprouted horns. Beside which,
if they were horns, why would the people be afraid to look at him, so
that he would need a veil?
* Defining words according to context. The Aramaic word "chamra" can
mean "wine" or "donkey". It depends where the "chamra" is found - if
it's in the cellar it's wine, and if it's in the stable it's a donkey.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
z...@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Richard Eney
Damien Neil <neild-...@misago.org> wrote:
> Steve Glover <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The other thing we're getting is a whole bunch of folk saying (online
>> and in the mass media) -"You never see Christians kick up about all the
>> bad stuff we have to suffer, but as soon as these ethnics get their
>> knickers in a twist, the Government immediately takes their side"-. I
>> don't think these guys remember, for example, the "Jerry Springer, the
>> Opera" stushie....
>
>However, consider the volume and nature of the reaction to _The DaVinci
>Code_ vs. the current Muslim bloviating.
>
>(My reaction, too, is "Oh, get over yourselves, for crying out loud.")
That's a satisfying thing to say to a fanatic. Provided you have your
hand on the butt of your loaded pistol, that is.
-- Dick Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
Richard Eney
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>But anti-Jewish -- more particularly, anti-Israel -- material is not only
>permitted, but is *widespread* in the European press.
Jewish is not the same as Israeli, Israeli is not the same as Jewish.
Don't treat one as a mere subset of the other.
-- Dick Eney
Mark Atwood
>
> That's a satisfying thing to say to a fanatic. Provided you have your
> hand on the butt of your loaded pistol, that is.
War-monger! What, you invest in Lockheed-Martin and Halliburton?
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Dorothy J Heydt
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>
>In the Hebrew, they're the same word. Whether it means "horn" or "ray"
>depends on context* - a bull has horns, the sun has rays. After a close
>encounter of the divine kind, Moses' skin is far more likely to have
>been emitting rays of light than to have sprouted horns. Beside which,
>if they were horns, why would the people be afraid to look at him, so
>that he would need a veil?
Yes; except St. Jerome didn't know that. He should've; but he
didn't.
David Friedman
"Per Chr. J." <libris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When it comes to Norway we do not have laws specifically targeting, for
> example, Holocaust revisionism. The general constitutional right of
> free speech is limited by several parts of the penal code, the relevant
> paragraph stating that speech inciting to hate and discrimination of
> for instance ethnic groups is not permitted.
Thanks. Interesting.
Everyone, in the West, talks about freedom of speech, but a lot fewer
believe in it, at least judging by legal codes.
Presumably, true speech inciting to hate and discrimination of ethnic
groups would still be illegal, at least on paper.
Scoop
: In article <ds7e3k$rqm$1...@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>,
: Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
: >In article <nbydncOFiIIKPnne...@rcn.net>,
: >Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>No, it doesn't. But a misinterpretation of the Hebrew (which refers to rays
: >>of light coming from Moses as a result of his prolonged exposure to God's
: >>presence) led to the variation about horns, which was picked up by
: >>Michaelangelo (among others) when he did his sculpture of Moses.
: >
: >The way I heard this story, it was a typo/misreading in the Latin
: >translation, "cornua" (horns) being substituted for "corona" (crown or halo).
: No, I think it's a mistranslation of a Hebrew word. *No, I don't
: know what word.)
Keren.
Robert Sneddon
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>Everyone, in the West, talks about freedom of speech, but a lot fewer
>believe in it, at least judging by legal codes.
It's like democracy. *We've* got democracy and *they* don't. So America
is a democracy where the total number of individual votes for a
President don't matter but Iran that has a universal franchise down to
sixteen-year-olds is not a real democracy because they elected a guy we
don't like.
What we've got is free speech because what we've got is what we call
free speech. I think people should be hoop-shaped because we're very
good at circular reasoning, or at least regarding that sort of reasoning
as sensible. Drambons, anyone?
>
>Presumably, true speech inciting to hate and discrimination of ethnic
>groups would still be illegal, at least on paper.
Yep. In the US, for example, it is a Federal offence to threaten the
life of the President even if there is no plan to implement said threat.
--
My gmail account is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Mike Van Pelt
Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>Also, as recruitment tools for the radical imams. The guy who
>started the big mess, with his tour of the Middle East bearing
>faked evidence, is saying that the response is highly
>satisfactory and attendance at his mosque has tripled.
Will it ever penetrate to the mass of rioting fanatics
that their imam is the one who actually perpetrated the
most outrageous of those cartoons? That by their own
alleged standards, it is their imam who is the blasphemer?
Or do they care at all? Is "religion" just an excuse,
to be given a fulsome show of devotion when it fits the
agenda, and to be trampled underfoot when it doesn't?
That certainly seems to be the case with the imam.
--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)
Mike Van Pelt
Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> ... a general boycott of Danish products ...
>
>Woo hoo! More Danish cheese for the rest of us!
When I went to my writers' group on Saturday, I picked up
a nice block of dill havarti at Whole Foods. Mmmmm!!
(And yes, I checked to make sure it was imported from Denmark.)
Damien Sullivan
> It's like democracy. *We've* got democracy and *they* don't. So America
>is a democracy where the total number of individual votes for a
>President don't matter but Iran that has a universal franchise down to
>sixteen-year-olds is not a real democracy because they elected a guy we
>don't like.
Also because of minor things such as completely undemocratic clerics removing
candidates they don't like from the ballots, and the same completely
undemocratic clerics having ultimate absolute power thus making the results of
the semi-democratic elections rather moot.
-xx- Damien X-)
Robert Sneddon
<pho...@ofb.net> writes
And the US removing voters from the rolls for odd reasons inconsistent
between states for a Federal election, and screwing up when they did
try. Poll tax anyone? The Supreme Court making decisions on who should
be President that are not binding on future cases?
Like I said, you've got a democracy which, looked at from the outside
has a certain banana-shape to it and you're declaring the young elective
democracy that replaced the absolute rule of the Pahlavi Throne as not
being a democracy at all. It's like the US condemning human rights
abuses in Syria while running CIA torture gulags offshore out of the
reach of the Constitution.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In article <113907...@deltrak.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Stephenson wrote:
>
>> Fanatics... *sigh* Makes you suspect a sh*t-stirring agenda.
>
>I've been wondering if the protests aren't REALLY a way for various Muslim
>organizations to show off their power -- to the local government. They
>can't go out into the streets to protest the Syrian dictatorship; they'd
>be shot. However, the government doesn't dare shut down a protest against
>Western disrespect for Muhammad, so the government has to sit mum
>while the radicals strut and burn things.
>
>Also, as recruitment tools for the radical imams. The guy who started the
>big mess, with his tour of the Middle East bearing faked evidence, is
>saying that the response is highly satisfactory and attendance at his
>mosque has tripled.
The Telegraph blog says that the Muslims created three additional,
more obscene, cartoons themselves to stir things up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=newsdesk&xml=/news/2006/02/06/bleurope06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/06/ixportaltop.html
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Damien Sullivan
> And the US removing voters from the rolls for odd reasons inconsistent
>between states for a Federal election, and screwing up when they did
>try. Poll tax anyone? The Supreme Court making decisions on who should
>be President that are not binding on future cases?
>
> Like I said, you've got a democracy which, looked at from the outside
>has a certain banana-shape to it and you're declaring the young elective
>democracy that replaced the absolute rule of the Pahlavi Throne as not
>being a democracy at all. It's like the US condemning human rights
US democracy sure isn't perfect, and if you removed the clerics Iran would
have what looks like good democratic mechanisms out of the box, and I'm not
going to defend administration rhetoric on anything.
But I'd stand by the US being a lot more democratic than Iran right now. Iran
*does* have the clerics, and the Supreme Leader. They had a reformist
President, and I think Parliament, and it didn't matter because the Leader and
Guardians have the real power.
The UK's democracy ain't exactly perfect either.
-xx- Damien X-)
Karl Johanson
> Or do they care at all? Is "religion" just an excuse,
> to be given a fulsome show of devotion when it fits the
> agenda, and to be trampled underfoot when it doesn't?
Yuh.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> In the Hebrew, they're the same word. Whether it means "horn" or
> "ray"
> depends on context* - a bull has horns, the sun has rays. After a
> close
> encounter of the divine kind, Moses' skin is far more likely to have
> been emitting rays of light than to have sprouted horns. Beside
> which,
> if they were horns, why would the people be afraid to look at him, so
> that he would need a veil?
Maybe cuz they weren't used to seeing the advanced makeup used to turn
human actors into various creatures in modern times & found anything out
of the ordinary frightening.
Karl Johanson
davt...@hotmail.com
Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> Last para of the article:
>
> "He [top Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar] said he is protecting us not because
> he is Hamas," said the Rev. Manuel Musallam of the Holy Family Roman
> Catholic Church, who said he has long and friendly relations with Hamas.
> "But he is protecting Christians and our institutions as the state of
> Palestine and as a government."
>
> Now there speaks a man who has a knife at his throat.
You have evidence he isn't telling the truth?
David Tomlin
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>Also, as recruitment tools for the radical imams. The guy who started the
>big mess, with his tour of the Middle East bearing faked evidence, is
>saying that the response is highly satisfactory and attendance at his
>mosque has tripled.
Hmm. I wonder what would happen if they charged him with making
fraudulent accusations of disrespect for the Prophet. . . .
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>. . . .
>So, no, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the "Muslim side of this
>controversy." They don't like depictions of Mohammad. Fine. Don't read
>publications that have them. Forbid them in your own countries. But
>rioting in the streets, attacking and threatening people, burning down
>embassies? These are the acts of the ignorant mob that wants to force
>everyone else to accept their viewpoint as the only legitimate one.
>. . . .
Of course, part of the problem is that in the Middle East, much of the
press is subject to government control, so the average person probably
assumes that a European government actually can lean on an offending
paper.
Dan, ad nauseam
Robert Sneddon
<pho...@ofb.net> writes
>US democracy sure isn't perfect, and if you removed the clerics Iran would
>have what looks like good democratic mechanisms out of the box, and I'm not
>going to defend administration rhetoric on anything.
>
>But I'd stand by the US being a lot more democratic than Iran right now.
Probably, but it depends what you choose as a baseline for your
comparison. America doesn't allow sixteen-year-olds to vote, Iran does.
Does that make Iran more democratic than America?
> Iran
>*does* have the clerics, and the Supreme Leader.
You mean like the US has its hereditary President who can do anything
he likes because it's wartime?
> They had a reformist
>President, and I think Parliament, and it didn't matter because the Leader and
>Guardians have the real power.
>
>The UK's democracy ain't exactly perfect either.
No democracy is perfect. What is probably more important is the history
of a given democracy like Iran. Thirty years ago it was like the US's
strongest ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, a brutal absolute
monarchy with an oppressive state machine to crack down on dissent. That
was overthrown in a popular revolt and the result wasn't a bemedalled
generalissimo in charge like in Pakistan, another of the US's best
friends in the Muslim world, but an elected government. More remarkably
they've been able to hold on to it despite pressures from democracies
like the US to restore the old monarchy or put some hand-picked puppets
in charge like the recent US support to overthrow the democratically
elected and popular President of Venezuala recently and replace him with
a military junta.
You know, looking at that paragraph again, I suddenly realise that the
US government really isn't that keen on other countries having
democracy, is it?
Mark Atwood
>
> You mean like the US has its hereditary President
I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
the standard schedule.
Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
Dan Kimmel
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:11uera9...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, of course they are two overlapping sets, but please don't be naive.
There are vicious attacks on Israel with deep roots in antisemitism, or
which are merely thinly disguised antisemitism. Arabs comparing Israels to
Nazis or claiming they drink the blood of non-Jewish children are not making
a statement divorced from antisemitism.
Dan Kimmel
"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2fymv2...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > You mean like the US has its hereditary President
>
> I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
> the standard schedule.
>
> Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
>
I cannot say it is impossible that Bush, Rove and Cheney aren't looking for
someway around it, but until such even happens I will continue to believe we
are a system where the Constitution and the rule of law will ultimately
prevail.
Daniel Silevitch
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> You mean like the US has its hereditary President
>
> I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
> the standard schedule.
>
> Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
I'm with Mark on this one. There are only two ways for GW Bush to remain
President past January 2009: Repeal the 22nd Amendment, or cancel the
2008 election.
The first is in principle possible, but Constitutional Amendments
typically take quite a while to pass (this is a very deliberate
feature). The clock is ticking; realistically, such an amendment would
have to pass by the middle of next year. That's assuming that it would
pass at all, of course. I don't think it would be too difficult to find
13 states sufficiently opposed to GWB to either shoot it down or delay
it past 08. In addition, the amendment might be worded to exclude
whoever is or was President when it takes effect. I suspect that such a
clause would be necessary for any hope of passage.
The second option is tinfoil hat territory. Period.
-dms
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Mike Van Pelt <m...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>
>Or do they care at all? Is "religion" just an excuse,
>to be given a fulsome show of devotion when it fits the
>agenda, and to be trampled underfoot when it doesn't?
Has there ever been a historical period, in any culture,
when that *wasn't* the case as often as not?
--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
David G. Bell
<m2fymv2...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com> m...@mark.atwood.name
"Mark Atwood" wrote:
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > You mean like the US has its hereditary President
>
> I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
> the standard schedule.
>
> Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
The definition of "hereditary" doesn't depend on how your predecessor
loses their position.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Daniel Silevitch
> On Tuesday, in article
> <m2fymv2...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com> m...@mark.atwood.name
> "Mark Atwood" wrote:
>
>> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >
>> > You mean like the US has its hereditary President
>>
>> I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
>> the standard schedule.
>>
>> Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
>
> The definition of "hereditary" doesn't depend on how your predecessor
> loses their position.
Bush's children are young enough that an amendment would be needed for
them to be able to run in 08. Unless, of course, you are claiming that
he has a bastard child somewhere who is 33 or older this year.
-dms
Dan Kimmel
"Daniel Silevitch" <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnduhfeb....@bardeen.uchicago.edu...
No, alas, it isn't. This is a president who has said that he is above the
Constitution, and he gets to decide what the law is.
Practically speaking I think the possibility of it happening is almost nil,
but that's not the same thing as saying it's impossible. Five years ago
would you have believed it possible for some of the nonsense this
administration is seriously spouting?
Daniel Silevitch
I think that politically speaking, it's basically impossible to justify.
The immediate and obvious counterargument that will occur to anyone with
two functioning brain cells[1] is "we held Presidential elections during
the Civil War and WWII".
The scenario that frightens me is not Eternal Bush, but rather an
annointed heir (George Allen of Virginia, perhaps) who continues these
policies.
-dms
[1] Granted, this excludes a large swath of the news media.
Aaron Denney
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> You mean like the US has its hereditary President
>
> I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
> the standard schedule.
>
> Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
Hereditary doesn't mean "won't give it up", Mark. I'll be amused if
they run Jeb.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Aaron Denney
Well, the first is quite possibly divorced from anti-semitism. Not too
likely, I'll grant, but possible.
Dan Kimmel
"Aaron Denney" <wno...@ofb.net> wrote in message
news:slrnduhm16...@ofb.net...
You're undoubtedly correct. As a liberal I am aghast that there are people
on the far left making such comparisons who would be *shocked* to be told
they were bigots.
Dan Kimmel
You're right, but the immediate and obvious counterargument to Bush's
illegal eavesdropping is that there is law that EXPRESSLY forbids it, and he
still claims he has the right to do so and his attorney-general is claiming
Congress allowed it without even knowing it was doing so.
It's a nightmare scenario better fit for books read at the beach or at
airports than taken seriously, but *what if* Bush decided to cancel
elections in the interests of "national security?" You know there are
politicians and that "large swath of the news media" who would be quick to
back him up. *That's* what I find scary. Not that I think that it's
actually being planned, but that if it did happen, there would be no uproar.
The country remains fairly lackadaisical about secret prisons, American
citizens locked up indefinitely with no charges, torture, and warrantless
searches. Why should an election matter, especially when most people can't
even be bothered to vote?
Mark Atwood
>>
>> The second option is tinfoil hat territory. Period.
>
> No, alas, it isn't. This is a president who has said that he is above the
> Constitution, and he gets to decide what the law is.
The United States Federal Government does not operate it's own elections.
Despite all the ranting and raving about the "lack of standards" and
"patchwork" the last two cycles, and the sneering from the folks from
CA and EU on this point...
... this is a *FEATURE*, not a bug.
Now, I think that my local elections office (King County Elections)
are a bunch of Keystone Cops who skate right on the edge of indictable
corruption, but I do have a great deal of confidence if that if the
current Administration says to them, "call off the elections", my
state government and my county government will say "you and what
army?", at which point the DOD will say to the White House, "Not
*this* Army".
I'm still waiting for someone to take my thousand dollar bet.
Mark Atwood
>
> It's a nightmare scenario better fit for books read at the beach or at
> airports than taken seriously, but *what if* Bush decided to cancel
> elections in the interests of "national security?"
He can't "cancel elections", because he doesn't *do* the elections.
The federal government doesn't run it's own elections.
This Is Not An Accident.
Mark Atwood
>
> Hereditary doesn't mean "won't give it up", Mark. I'll be amused if
> they run Jeb.
There is a piece of SF sitting in my to-read shelf that has a bit of
back history about the election cycle of the late 20th-early 21st
century.
Starting in 1980, the POTUSs are Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush,
Clinton, Bush. The second Clinton got a USN CVN named after her, the
USS Hillary Clinton, for being the most uncompromising wartime
president in US history...
David Friedman
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> No, alas, it isn't. This is a president who has said that he is above the
> Constitution, and he gets to decide what the law is.
>
I don't think that's correct. His claim that he gets to decide what the
law is purports to be based on the Constitution. I don't think it is
based on a correct reading of the Constitution, but I don't believe I
have seen any statements from Bush implying that he is above the
Constitution.
And I should probably add that, while quite a lot of legal scholars
think, as I do, that the NSA actions are illegal, many fewer think that
they are clearly unconstitutioal.
Gordon Dundas
posting to the group not just to you.One of these decades I will get
Usernet right!
I sure you will find people on far and come to think of not so far
left who would be shocked by that, At some undetermined point people as
I have mentioned to you become not right wing or left wing but simply
Assholes.
I happen to view the people who are busy burning embassies and those
egging them on as savages .
Konrad Gaertner
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> You mean like the US has its hereditary President
>
> I will bet you a thousand dollars that he leaves office on or before
> the standard schedule.
>
> Will you take that bet, or will you shut the fuck up on that point?
How much would you bet that the fifty years following his leaving office
will not see another Pres. Bush nor Pres. Kennedy?
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:slrnduhfeb....@bardeen.uchicago.edu:
And that would polarize it; Clinton is still wildly popular in some
circles.
> The second option is tinfoil hat territory. Period.
Agreed.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Matthew B. Tepper
Or Jeb Bush. And we'll know we're subjects of the new monarchy when the
next anointed is Neil.
> -dms
>
> [1] Granted, this excludes a large swath of the news media.
--
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:m2r76fj...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com:
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> writes:
>>
>> Hereditary doesn't mean "won't give it up", Mark. I'll be amused if
>> they run Jeb.
>
> There is a piece of SF sitting in my to-read shelf that has a bit of
> back history about the election cycle of the late 20th-early 21st
> century.
>
> Starting in 1980, the POTUSs are Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush,
> Clinton, Bush. The second Clinton got a USN CVN named after her, the
> USS Hillary Clinton, for being the most uncompromising wartime
> president in US history...
Let me show that book to Jerry Pournelle sometime so I can watch him do a
classic spit-take.
Richard Eney
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ddfr-9C43E6.0...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
>Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>
>>Everyone, in the West, talks about freedom of speech, but a lot fewer
>>believe in it, at least judging by legal codes.
>
> It's like democracy. *We've* got democracy and *they* don't. So America
>is a democracy where the total number of individual votes for a
>President don't matter but Iran that has a universal franchise down to
>sixteen-year-olds is not a real democracy because they elected a guy we
>don't like.
No; because the "Supreme Revolutionary Council" (of hard-line Muslim
clerics) disallowed the candidacy of anybody they didn't think was
sufficiently Pure. You'd have a comparison if, say, Bush had disallowed
the candidacy of everybody else except Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and
Lyndon LaRoche and then pointed to his reelection as evidence of the will
of the People.
-- Dick Eney
OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff
Richard Eney
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> And the US removing voters from the rolls for odd reasons inconsistent
>between states for a Federal election, and screwing up when they did
>try. Poll tax anyone?
Since the States decide eligibility, it is not too surprising that out of
fifty different sets of rules some should not be in agreement with others.
In fact, I'd be sort of suspicious if all of them were in lockstep.
-- Dick Eney
Richard Eney
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ds91kr$d9q$1...@naig.caltech.edu>, Damien Sullivan
><pho...@ofb.net> writes
>
>>US democracy sure isn't perfect, and if you removed the clerics Iran would
>>have what looks like good democratic mechanisms out of the box, and I'm not
>>going to defend administration rhetoric on anything.
>>
>>But I'd stand by the US being a lot more democratic than Iran right now.
>
> Probably, but it depends what you choose as a baseline for your
>comparison. America doesn't allow sixteen-year-olds to vote, Iran does.
>Does that make Iran more democratic than America?
Nope. It means that the Imams don't really have to worry about whether
the voters are old enough to know what they're doing, because their votes
don't matter that much.
>> Iran
>>*does* have the clerics, and the Supreme Leader.
>
> You mean like the US has its hereditary President who can do anything
>he likes because it's wartime?
On what alternate time line did you find this happening?
>> They had a reformist
>>President, and I think Parliament, and it didn't matter because the Leader and
>>Guardians have the real power.
>>
>>The UK's democracy ain't exactly perfect either.
>
> No democracy is perfect. What is probably more important is the history
>of a given democracy like Iran. Thirty years ago it was like the US's
>strongest ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, a brutal absolute
>monarchy with an oppressive state machine to crack down on dissent. That
>was overthrown in a popular revolt and the result wasn't a bemedalled
>generalissimo in charge like in Pakistan, another of the US's best
>friends in the Muslim world, but an elected government. More remarkably
>they've been able to hold on to it despite pressures from democracies
>like the US to restore the old monarchy or put some hand-picked puppets
>in charge like the recent US support to overthrow the democratically
>elected and popular President of Venezuala recently and replace him with
>a military junta.
The Ayatollah Khomeini was the head of an elected government. Wow. What
have you been smoking, and did you inhale?
> You know, looking at that paragraph again, I suddenly realise that the
>US government really isn't that keen on other countries having
>democracy, is it?
Yeah. Just look at the way we overthrew the French government and put a
puppet leader in when DeGaulle tried to withdraw from NATO, in the height
of the Cold War when we were worried about the Red Army rolling to the Bay
of Biscay no later than next week.
But I suppose it's wicked of me to confuse you with inconvenient historic
data. All right, then, I'm wicked.
-=- Dick Eney
Richard Eney
Dan Kimmel <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>It's a nightmare scenario better fit for books read at the beach or at
>airports than taken seriously, but *what if* Bush decided to cancel
>elections in the interests of "national security?" You know there are
>politicians and that "large swath of the news media" who would be quick to
>back him up.
No, we don't "know" -- or believe -- any such thing, and neither do you
when you're sober.
-- Dick Eney
Richard Eney
<davt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>
>> Last para of the article:
>>
>> "He [top Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar] said he is protecting us not because
>> he is Hamas," said the Rev. Manuel Musallam of the Holy Family Roman
>> Catholic Church, who said he has long and friendly relations with Hamas.
>> "But he is protecting Christians and our institutions as the state of
>> Palestine and as a government."
>>
>> Now there speaks a man who has a knife at his throat.
>
>You have evidence he isn't telling the truth?
Ever hear the phrase, "res ipse loquitur"?
-- Dick Eney
Dan Kimmel
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> writes:
> >
> > It's a nightmare scenario better fit for books read at the beach or at
> > airports than taken seriously, but *what if* Bush decided to cancel
> > elections in the interests of "national security?"
>
> He can't "cancel elections", because he doesn't *do* the elections.
>
> The federal government doesn't run it's own elections.
>
>
And the president doesn't get to ignore the law. But he's doing it anyway.
And bragging about it.
Dan Kimmel
To the contrary, if you took you head out of the ground you'd see media
types and Republican members of Congress saying the president is above the
law, and can do whatever he likes in the name of national security. That
isn't speculation. It's happening *now*. I'm simply pushing it a bit
further, and suggesting that those who will defend Bush regardless of what
he has done so far are not likely to change their tune.
Dan Kimmel
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-40FC16.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
In fact, Bush is violating the law in area where Congress has spoken without
any ambiguity. When the president says HE will decide what the law means,
the balance of powers is out the window.
Robert Sneddon
<dic...@radix.net> writes
>> It's like democracy. *We've* got democracy and *they* don't. So America
>>is a democracy where the total number of individual votes for a
>>President don't matter but Iran that has a universal franchise down to
>>sixteen-year-olds is not a real democracy because they elected a guy we
>>don't like.
>
>No; because the "Supreme Revolutionary Council" (of hard-line Muslim
>clerics) disallowed the candidacy of anybody they didn't think was
>sufficiently Pure. You'd have a comparison if, say, Bush had disallowed
>the candidacy of everybody else except Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and
>Lyndon LaRoche and then pointed to his reelection as evidence of the will
>of the People.
Let's say Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to become President of the
United States. Nope, not allowed even though he's an American citizen
and currently Governor of California. How about my nephew, David, a US
Army veteran? Nope, he was born in Scotland. How about my niece, Karen,
a New York lawyer? She *was* born in the US. Ah, but she's only 25 years
old. How about that guy Clinton? Excellent President, very popular, lots
of peace and prosperity during his two previous terms as President. Why
can't you get him back to fix things? Oh nope, that pesky anti-FDR 22nd
Amendment gets in the way. Drat.
There are lots of arbitrary rules about who can and can't stand for
election to the post of President in the US. There are arbitrary rules
about who can and can't stand for election in Iran. Different kinds of
democracy for different kinds of countries. Doesn't make the US any less
of a democracy, really although some other countries might laugh behind
your backs at things like your quaint Electoral College thing and your
repeated incompetence in running elections.
--
My gmail account is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Damien Sullivan
>> Iran
>>*does* have the clerics, and the Supreme Leader.
>
> You mean like the US has its hereditary President who can do anything
>he likes because it's wartime?
Can do anything he likes -- like that social security reform, eh? He seemed
to really care about that. Oops. Are we drilling in the Alaska Reserve yet?
>monarchy with an oppressive state machine to crack down on dissent. That
>was overthrown in a popular revolt and the result wasn't a bemedalled
>generalissimo in charge like in Pakistan, another of the US's best
>friends in the Muslim world, but an elected government. More remarkably
Please tell me when Khomeini was elected Supreme Leader, and what elections
filled the Council of Guardians.
> You know, looking at that paragraph again, I suddenly realise that the
>US government really isn't that keen on other countries having
>democracy, is it?
Yes, we do have a rather disgraceful history here, especially with respect to
left-wing elected governments. That still doesn't make Iran as democratic as
the US.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Sullivan
>>No; because the "Supreme Revolutionary Council" (of hard-line Muslim
>>clerics) disallowed the candidacy of anybody they didn't think was
>>sufficiently Pure. You'd have a comparison if, say, Bush had disallowed
> There are lots of arbitrary rules about who can and can't stand for
>election to the post of President in the US. There are arbitrary rules
>about who can and can't stand for election in Iran. Different kinds of
>democracy for different kinds of countries. Doesn't make the US any less
Are you seriously arguing these are equivalent? The US has various uniform
rules which yes, bar foreign born citizens or native citizens under a certain
age. Iran has people removing candidates they personally don't like. The
US's rules are independent of political position, Iran's aren't.
>of a democracy, really although some other countries might laugh behind
>your backs at things like your quaint Electoral College thing and your
>repeated incompetence in running elections.
Why behind our back? Some of us despair up front about it.
But then we can laugh at the UK ignoring most of the Liberal Democrat votes,
or the fact that Ken Livingstone has more a popular mandate than Tony Blair.
-xx- Damien X-)
Marilee J. Layman
<mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 05:24:31 -0000, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <113907...@deltrak.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Stephenson wrote:
>>
>>> Fanatics... *sigh* Makes you suspect a sh*t-stirring agenda.
>>
>>I've been wondering if the protests aren't REALLY a way for various Muslim
>>organizations to show off their power -- to the local government. They
>>can't go out into the streets to protest the Syrian dictatorship; they'd
>>be shot. However, the government doesn't dare shut down a protest against
>>Western disrespect for Muhammad, so the government has to sit mum
>>while the radicals strut and burn things.
>>
>>Also, as recruitment tools for the radical imams. The guy who started the
>>big mess, with his tour of the Middle East bearing faked evidence, is
>>saying that the response is highly satisfactory and attendance at his
>>mosque has tripled.
>
>The Telegraph blog says that the Muslims created three additional,
>more obscene, cartoons themselves to stir things up.
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=newsdesk&xml=/news/2006/02/06/bleurope06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/06/ixportaltop.html
And I forgot to post that I cribbed that from Mishalak's blog.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Marilee J. Layman
<dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>The scenario that frightens me is not Eternal Bush, but rather an
>annointed heir (George Allen of Virginia, perhaps) who continues these
>policies.
If he wins, they'll have to outfit the White House and Congress with
spittoons.